The reason I mentioned the shareware is because some publications are using this as scare-mongering. In addition, a few cite the arpanet as prior art.
I read some of the briefs (yawn!). The one by Broderbund is interested in that it quite rightly attacks the definition of "point of sales" , "material object", "information manufacturing machine".
However, it is on very shaky ground because a narrow interpretation of point of sales would effect all internet commerce. I bet the IRS would have something to say about that. I believe that "point of sale" has to be extended to someones home and PC. In addition, if "point of sale" does not cover a home, what the hell is pay-per-view selling to?
As for "material object" they again give a restrictive definition that runs contrary to the spirit of commerce on the web. Lets face it, a copy of a program downloaded and stored on the hard drive of your PC becomes your property, esp. if you pay for it. Again, I bet the copyright boys would have something to say about this.
Finally, "Information Manufacturing Machine". Now they are doing something that I was taught you should never do. Using the EXAMPLE of how to implement a system covered by the patent to introduce a restriction to the claims to cover only that instance. Even the patent office would'nt see any merit in this.
I havn't read the rest yet, but I'll get round to it. |
